SAN DIEGO –​ The City of San Diego should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of government-controlled energy before flipping the switch and moving residents and businesses into such a program.

​Our coalition has said we would support government-controlled energy in San Diego, also known as Community Choice Aggregation or CCA, if it were cheaper, greener and did not shift costs by forcing ratepayers in neighboring communities to subsidize the city’s new program.

As a younger man, he ran marathons. “I was running 100 miles a week,” Gaffen said. Friends and business associates said that need to challenge himself is typical, illustrated perhaps in that Gaffen is involved in two major projects on opposite sides of the planet.

​He and his partners in Protea Waterfront Development are developers of the $1.2 billon redevelopment of a 70-acre portion of San Diego’s waterfront that includes Seaport Village. His project management firm, Gafcon, also is overseeing the development of a sprawling waterfront site in China along the Huangpu River spanning five square miles. The project is estimated to cost more than $7 billion.

You know a problem is bad when it makes bipartisan enemies. These days, San Diego’s housing crisis has everyone from developers and environmentalists as well as business and labor leaders seeking solutions for smarter growth in our region. And while not everyone may agree on how we get there, everyone agrees we need more housing in California.

​But there is a major roadblock to this progress rearing its ugly head on our ballot. California’s Proposition 10 and National City’s Measure W will be decided by voters this November. Both claim to address the housing crisis but neither measure creates a single unit of housing and both will actually increase the cost of housing while burdening taxpayers. Policies like these seek to increase the number of rent-controlled units or limit landlords’ ability to change rents, but according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “neither of these changes would increase the supply of housing and, in fact, likely would discourage new construction.” If policies like Prop. 10 and Measure W pass, there may be no pulling our limited housing supply back from the brink of unaffordability.

The Airport Authority has circulated a flawed and misleading draft environmental impact report to redevelop Terminal 1 at San Diego International Airport.

​The airport wants to push the costs to minimize traffic, transit and air emission impacts onto residents, local businesses, the city of San Diego, the Port of San Diego, SANDAG and others.

Unless corrected, this project threatens nearby neighborhoods, leaving them with more traffic, more noise and more air pollution, and little in the way of plans to eliminate or minimize these impacts. The environmental impact report uses outdated facts, understates problems this redevelopment creates and ignores the impacts on residents and businesses in Point Loma, Little Italy and elsewhere. The Airport Authority should go back to the drawing board and get it right.

Local political leaders from across the spectrum agree the airport’s more than $2 billion plan to renovate Terminal 1 is a big regional priority that could boost the economy. Yet officials from several agencies have weighed in to express exasperation and frustration with the airport’s approach to the project.

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is trying to build one of the region’s most anticipated projects, and just about every major public agency in town is pissed about it.

The Airport Authority earlier this year unveiled the environmental report for its plan to rebuild Lindbergh Field’s Terminal 1. The project could cost up to $3 billion. Local political leaders from across the spectrum agree it’s a priority for San Diego’s economy.

​But officials from the city of San Diego, the Port of San Diego, San Diego County, the Metropolitan Transit System, the San Diego Association of Governments, the California Coastal Commission, the California State Lands Commission and the state Department of Transportation submitted stern – at times exasperated – letters opposing the airport’s approach.